Empiricism Critical Analysis

Write a short analysis in which you make sense of Hume’s empiricist critique of miracles (for an unacquainted, intelligent reader). Be sure to contextualize the tradition of Classical Empiricism to set up your discussion of Hume’s critique of miracles, and provide a critical assessment of that critique (do you agree/disagree? How/why?)
Help an unacquainted, intelligent reader understand the features of the mind-body problem and its proposed solutions. AVOID FIRST PERSON, NARRATIVE LANGUAGE; STRIVE FOR THIRD PERSON OBJECTIVE. SEE HERE FOR EXPLANATIONS OF WHAT THIS MEANS: https://www.thesaurus.com/e/writing/1st-person-vs-2nd-person-vs-3rd-person-pov/#:~:text=Using third-person limited point,trapped in the character’s head
PAPER EXPECTATIONS (FROM SYLLABUS)
The paper lengths will vary according to the assignment objectives, but students should aim for at least three pages (750 words).
These papers will address an idea considered during the week’s readings (prompts provided in the relevant Friday assignment module).
Expectations for all of the short analysis papers are to fulfill the question/s of the prompt, and students are expected to follow standard formatting convention–according to preference APA/Chicago/MLA, see here for quick reference: https://pitt.libguides.com/citationhelp (Links to an external site.) (NOTE: if citations from the reading is a PDF duplication and it is a copied original source, full correct citations are expected, otherwise, students may reference as “PDF [title] excerpt, pg #)
Scoring ranges for these 20 pt exercises is as follows:
Excellent: 18-20 pts (paper contains minimal to no typographical or grammatical issues, addresses the assigned the prompt correctly and effectively, and contains no interpretive errors such as obvious mischaracterizations of an author’s view or idea)
Satisfactory/Good: 16-17 pts (paper contains a few typographical or grammatical issues, and/or slightly misinterprets the objectives of the assigned prompt, and/or contain a significant interpretive error such as an obvious mischaracterization of an author’s view or idea)
Poor to average: 0-15 pts (to whatever degree reflected in the score outcome, paper contains multiple typographical or grammatical issues, and/or misinterprets the objectives of the assigned prompt, and/or contains multiple interpretive errors such as obvious mischaracterizations of an author’s view of idea)
Further detailed expectations of these assignments and all of the writing you will do for this course is provided on Canvas under “supplemental materials” in the recorded Zoom session “Short Analysis Writing in a Philosophy Course”: a successful sample paper is provided and the features that make it successful are highlighted in the Canvas-posted presentation.